Some new and interesting news on the AASW

I find it increasingly puzzling to read the stuff that is emerging from the Australian Association Social Workers.

As stated before they are a company and are thus governed by their constitution - or are they?

Article 180 of the AASW constitution states:

"180. The members of all Branches must meet annually and within ninety (90) days after the end of the financial year, to elect:
a) a committee of not less than four members of the relevant Branch to be called the Branch Committee of Management; and
b) a Director to the Board. "

NOW REMEMBER the power of the Board is limited (or at least SHOULD BE ) by the Constitution. So in other words they should not be able to make rules that transcend their powers.

The Article above stipulates that a Branch has to meet annually AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR - EACH YEAR.

The By-laws created by the Board claim to enable the following in Clause 7 (d):

"Members of a Branch Committee of Management shall be elected for two (2) year terms."

OOPS can you see the inconsistency?

The intention of the constitution is obviously to have annual elections for Committees of Management while the By-Laws seeks to frustrate this intention by permitting 2 year terms.

Which should have precedence? The constitution or the by-laws created by the Board.

Er . . . no contest really - the constitution, since the Board's powers are derived from it they cannot do things that go outside of the powers that they are given.

Why is the company not being overseen by the watchdog of companies?

Why do the members not complain?

If the members are complaining then why does the company not respond to their complaints?

The more I hear about this organisation the more I would like to see its internal affairs investigated for irregularities.

We have people in the community who in good faith have joined this organisation and have paid their membership fees and are relying on good governance by the people who run their organisation.

I think it is time for these good people to take a look at how their money is being spent and how their faith in good governance is or is not being rewarded.

If they find that they are not being governed according to the rules then they can take action at their annual general meetings or at a special meeting that can be convened at the behest of just 100 members.

Why is it that they do nothing?